University of Virginia Library

TO JAMES MONROE.

Dr. Sir,—I recd. yours of the 19th on Monday.
Genl. Brown who returned from Monticello that
evening has been since with me till 10 O'C today.
Your letter found me indisposed from exposure to
a cold wind, without due precaution, And I have
continued so. I write now with a fever on me.
This circumstance will account for both the delay &
the brevity in complying with your request.

The pinch of the difficulty in the case stated seems
to be in the words "forever," coupled with the
interdict relating to the Territory N. of L 36° 30′.[11]
If the necessary import of these words be that they
are to operate as a condition on future States admitted
into the Union, and as a restriction on them
after admission, they seem to encounter indirectly
the argts. which prevailed in the Senate for an unconditional
admission of Missouri. I must conclude
therefore from the assent of the Senate to the words,
after the strong vote on constitutional grounds agst.
the restriction on Missouri, that there is some
other mode of explaining them in their actual
application.

As to the right of Congs. to apply such a restriction
during the Territorial Periods, it depends on the
clause in the Constitution specially providing for
the management of these subordinate establishments.

On one side it naturally occurs that the right being
given from the necessity of the case, and in suspension
of the great principle of self Govt. ought not
to be extended farther nor continued longer than the
occasion might fairly require.

On the other side it cannot be denied that the
Constl. phrase, "to make all rules" &c as expounded

by uniform practice, is somewhat of a ductile nature,
and leaves much to Legislative discretion.

The questions to be decided seem to be whether a
territorial restriction be an assumption of illegitimate
power, or 2 a measure of legitimate power. And if
the latter only whether the injury threatened to the
nation from an acquiescence in the measure, or from
a frustration of it, under all the circumstances of
the case, be the greater. On the first point there is
certainly room for difference of Opinion, tho' for
myself I must own that I have always leaned to the
belief that the restriction was not within the true
scope of the Constitution. On the alternative presented
by the second point there can be no room,
with the cool and candid, for blame on those acquiescing
in a conciliatory course, the demand for
which was deemed urgent, and the course itself
deemed not irreconcilable with the Constitution.

This is the hasty view of the subject I have taken.
I am aware that it may be suspected of being influenced
by the habit of a guarded construction of
Constl. powers; and I have certainly felt all the influence
that cd. justly flow from a conviction, that an
uncontrouled dispersion of the slaves now in the
U. S. was not only best for the nation, but most
favorable for the slaves, also both as to their prospects
of emancipation, and as to their condition in
the mean time.

The inflammatory conduct of Mr. King surprises
every one. His general warfare agst. the slaveholding
States, and his efforts to disparage the

securities derived from the Constn. were least of all
to be looked for. I have noticed less of recurrence
to the contemporary expositions of the Charter than
was to be expected from the zeal & industry of the
Champions in Debate. The proceedings of the Va.
Convention have been well sifted; but those of other
States ought not to have been Overlooked. The
speeches of Mr. King in Massts. and Mr. Hamilton
in N. York shew the ground on which they vindicated
particularly the Compound rule of representation
in Cong.s. And doubtless there are many other evidences
of the way of thinking then prevalent on that
& other articles equally the result of a sense of equity
& a spirit of mutual concession.